frame_camera_on_object

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without any details on side effects (e.g., modifies camera position, requires active camera), limitations, or return behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what happens when invoked.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but this conciseness sacrifices meaningful information. It effectively states the tool's name in words, offering no structured detail or context. The brevity is not useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (1 parameter with no schema detail) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs, or any contextual cues needed for proper use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'kwargs' has no schema details (0% coverage), and the description provides no explanation of what arguments are accepted or how to structure them. The agent cannot determine valid inputs from this definition alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Frame camera on object' provides a verb+resource pair, but the verb 'frame' is ambiguous and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'animate_camera_push_in' or 'set_active_camera'. It lacks specificity on what framing entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing camera) or context, making it hard for an agent to decide between this and similar camera manipulation tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.